MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015074668 · doi:10.1007/s00125-020-05133-4

Effects of ertugliflozin on renal function over 104 weeks of treatment: a post hoc analysis of two randomised controlled trials

2020· article· en· W3015074668 on OpenAlexafffund
David Z.I. Cherney, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Robert Frederich, Mario Maldonado, Jie Liu, Annpey Pong, Zhi Jin Xu, Shrita M. Patel, Anne Hickman, James P. Mancuso, Ira Gantz, Steven G. Terra

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetologia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersDepartment of Medicine, University of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMerck Sharp and DohmeDiabetes CanadaEuropean Association for the Study of DiabetesUniversity of TorontoEuropean Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant AssociationPfizer
KeywordsGlimepirideMedicinePost-hoc analysisPlaceboAlbuminuriaCreatinineInternal medicinePopulationUrologyType 2 diabetesRenal functionDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims/hypothesis This study aimed to evaluate the effect of ertugliflozin, a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, on eGFR and albuminuria (urine albumin/creatinine ratio [UACR]) vs glimepiride or placebo/glimepiride (non-ertugliflozin) over 104 weeks of treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus, using pooled data from two randomised controlled, active comparator studies from the eValuation of ERTugliflozin effIcacy and Safety (VERTIS) programme ( Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01999218 [VERTIS SU] and NCT02033889 [VERTIS MET]). In the VERTIS SU study, ertugliflozin was evaluated vs glimepiride over 104 weeks. In the VERTIS MET study, ertugliflozin was evaluated vs placebo over 26 weeks; eligible participants were switched from placebo to blinded glimepiride from week 26 to week 104. The glycaemic efficacy of ertugliflozin vs non-ertugliflozin was also assessed in the pooled population. Methods Post hoc, exploratory analysis was used to investigate mean changes from baseline in eGFR and UACR over 104 weeks. Results Overall, mean (SD) baseline eGFR was 88.2 (18.8) ml min −1 (1.73 m) −2 and geometric mean (95% CI) of baseline UACR was 1.31 mg/mmol (1.23, 1.38). At week 6, the changes in eGFR from baseline were −2.3, −2.7 and −0.7 ml min −1 (1.73 m) −2 for the ertugliflozin 5 mg, ertugliflozin 15 mg and non-ertugliflozin groups, respectively. Mean eGFR in the ertugliflozin groups increased over time thereafter, while it decreased in the non-ertugliflozin group. Week 104 changes in eGFR from baseline were −0.2, 0.1 and −2.0 ml min −1 (1.73 m) −2 for the ertugliflozin 5 mg, ertugliflozin 15 mg and non-ertugliflozin groups, respectively. Among 415 patients (21.4% of the cohort) with albuminuria at baseline, the ertugliflozin groups had greater reductions in UACR at all measured time points up to week 104. At week 104, the non-ertugliflozin-corrected difference in UACR (95% CI) was −29.5% (−44.8, −9.8; p < 0.01) for ertugliflozin 5 mg and −37.6% (−51.8, −19.2; p < 0.001) for ertugliflozin 15 mg. Least squares mean changes from baseline in HbA 1c (mmol/mol [95% CI]) at week 104 were similar between treatment groups: −6.84 (−7.64, −6.03), −7.74 (−8.54, −6.94) and −6.84 (−7.65, −6.03) in the ertugliflozin 5 mg, ertugliflozin 15 mg and non-ertugliflozin groups, respectively. Least squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1 c (% [95% CI]) at week 104 were: −0.63 (−0.70, −0.55), −0.71 (−0.78, −0.64) and −0.63 (−0.70, −0.55) in the ertugliflozin 5 mg, ertugliflozin 15 mg and non-ertugliflozin groups, respectively. Conclusions/interpretation Ertugliflozin reduced eGFR at week 6, consistent with the known pharmacodynamic effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on renal function. Over 104 weeks, eGFR values returned to baseline and were higher with ertugliflozin compared with non-ertugliflozin treatment, even though changes in HbA 1c did not differ between the groups. Ertugliflozin reduced UACR in patients with baseline albuminuria. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT01999218 and NCT02033889.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetologiaSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207